How About A LEGAL unlock method?

[CalBoy]

How do you figure that unlocking the iphone is perfectly legal? It would be perfectly legal to unlock an iPhone by flashing custom firmware and an operating system to it. But if you intend to modify apple's firmware and continue using apple's OS then you would be violating the terms of the Software License Agreement. You don't own OSX, you license it for use.

Note that violating the software agreement in this case isn't a crime; it's simply a civil breach. However, there is an establish law which says that customers have the right to unlock phones if they wish. If Apple tried to take you to court (which they wouldn't anyways; you're not worth the legal fees to them) they wouldn't fair so well simply because there would be a good defense in the form of, "every other phone is unlockable, what makes yours the exception?" If a case like this proceeded, I would imagine that the verdict would come out in favor of the defendant, and Apple's software agreement would essentially be useless in stopping unlockers (as the legal principle would have been established via a jury verdict or judicial decision).

 

[Cinemagic]

Unlocking IS legal. The modification to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act allows for the unlocking of phones to be used on any carrier's network. When you bought an iPhone, you agreed to a contract. The contract allows you to use AT&T only. One is a criminal and one is civil. If you unlock the iPhone and use it with another carrier, then if you bought your phone from Apple and agreed to their contract, you have then violated the contract. FCC, FBI or local po-po will not come after you bercause you have violated no laws. If you did not sign up with AT&T, you have not broken any agreements with them, so they cannot sue you. Apple, can sue for a breach of contract. As we have seen, the likelihood of that happening is nil. They would have to show damages. The damages would be the fees they would have received from AT&T had you honored the contract. The legal fees to file suit would cost thousands of times more than the revenue they didn't get from AT&T. If they turn your phone into an iBrick, it's now up to you to sue them. But if you broke the contract by unlocking your iPhone, your chances of winning are not going to be very great.

So the only way you're going to get the phone unlocked "legally" is to beg and plead with Apple. Like that's going to do any good. When the contract with Apple is up, if they cannor re-negotiate a deal with AT&T or another carrier, then they may indeed sell unlocked phones. But you can rest assured that it will be in the best interest of Apple. Customer desires (outside of maximizing profits for Apple) will not be a factor.

 

[carfac]

Note that violating the software agreement in this case isn't a crime; it's simply a civil breach. However, there is an establish law which says that customers have the right to unlock phones if they wish.

I think you have this a bit wrong. My understanding is that It IS a violation of the DMCA to unlock a locked phone with custom or "hacker" software- you are reverse engineering or whatever...

HOWEVER, there is now an EXEMPTION to the DMCA that allows one to unlock their phone. It is still against the DMCA, but you are now protected from prosecution for doing it by the exemption.

It is a fine hair, I know...

 

[sananda]

I would believe Apple has a simple method for unlocking iPhones (probably in 1.1.1). Here's why:

Undoubtedly the 1.1.1 release included UK network settings etc, and in the UK I'll put simply consumer law on phones: Phones must be unlocked/unlockable after the contract period IF the phone has been subsidised. Phones can only be locked if they're subsidised. The iPhone is not.

i assumed that there was some kind of requirement for uk networks to unlock a phone at the end of the contract period. but i am informed by ofcom that there is no such requirement at any point.

 

[CalBoy]

I think you have this a bit wrong. My understanding is that It IS a violation of the DMCA to unlock a locked phone with custom or "hacker" software- you are reverse engineering or whatever...

HOWEVER, there is now an EXEMPTION to the DMCA that allows one to unlock their phone. It is still against the DMCA, but you are now protected from prosecution for doing it by the exemption.

It is a fine hair, I know...

Hmmm...that could go either way. However, you are free to create your own OS for the iPhone (because all of us have the time for that).

I think that if this was pursued in court, the likely outcome would be a verdict which both protects the consumer's right to unlock a phone, and Apple's right to prevent the manipulation of its software...in essence where we are now.

However, this from Wikipedia says something interesting:

The current administratively-created exemptions, issued in November 2006, are:
<snip>
Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network. (A new exemption in 2006.)

 

[carfac]

However, this from Wikipedia says something interesting:

...for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network. (A new exemption in 2006.)

What I said. It is not made legal, it is made exempt from prosecution if you violate DMCA to do it.

 

[PDE]

If you want to unlock your iPhone, then Apple doesn't want you as a customer.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Apple has known full well when it sells iphones to non-US residents/citizens (those who show foreign passports as IDs when they purchase, for example) that these phones will end up being unlocked in another country. It has the statistics also from ATT how many people activate vs. how many units Apple sells so it can easily at least estimate that many many of the phone it's selling in the Apple Stores in major cities are NOT going to be activated through ATT. Yet, the company continues to be disingenuous and continues to sell these phones without requirements of immediate activation. They should have changed their policies to force activation, but they were too greedy to do that. Yes, yes, I know all you people who will say that it's up to the customer to be perfectly informed about everything always or suffer the consequences and take responsibility, but what standards is APple held to? What responsibilities should Apple shoulder? Apparently most people around feel that it has none. They want to make money off you - and they've done that - and then they have the nerve to tell the people whose phones are no longer functional because they couldn't be bothered to implement a simple firmware check that would show a message that the new firmware could not be installed because of mofication, that they'll need to go buy a new iphone.

All I can say is that I hope somebody or some group challenges Apple legally and that newspapers keep covering the story. Apple is rotten to the core and , as a customer of 16 years, I'm sad to say that I'll take any opportunity I can to find other alternatives in the future. It's simply not acceptable how the company has handled this.

Now flame me if you want! I don't care.

 

[CalBoy]

What I said. It is not made legal, it is made exempt from prosecution if you violate DMCA to do it.

Well, if it isn't open to prosecution, guess what? It's LEGAL!!! Realisitically, many states have laws which say you can't burn the flag, but the Supreme Court said that that's protected by the First Amendment, so you can't be prosecuted, hence, it's legal.

Obviously the consumr has the right to do what they will to their own phone; that has been a fairly firmly established doctrine for some time. What iPhone customers are experiencing now is something different; software updates which are meant to prevent unlockers from succeeding. That too is perfectly legal until new legislation comes about. It seems to me that someone will simply have to keep writing software to go around Apple's "bricking" codes.

 

[techyjoe]

Even it it was legal to unlock it, you are still violating the terms of the SLA and are no longer allowed to use the boot rom , other embedded software, and the operating system on the phone. RTFSLA. So go ahead and unlock it and install your 3rd party boot rom , transceiver firmware ( which would have to be authorized by the FCC), and operating system.

 

[Cleverboy]

This is ridiculous. Leave it to the Mac zealots to think that there is a reason that we should get an exception to the rule.

Why not get Samsung and LG phones working on other carriers than Verizon while you're at it. Or get XM radios to work with Sirrius. PS3 games to work on Xbox 360's. Get dogs and cats to be friends.

Its a business deal guys with contracts and laws and lawyers and stuff. Give it a rest!.

LOL. Cats and dogs. That's funny.

This thread is odd. Unlocking is ENTIRELY legal. You just might end up with an unsupported device is all. You're luckiest if you purchase a phone that actually has an UNLOCKED version available to begin with, as opposed to buying a phone like the iPhone that doesn't sell an unlocked version of their phone. Sadly, some otherwise reputable people don't seem to understand the industry they often report on, thereby misinterpreting the truth here. If the phone you unlock is not available in an UNLOCKED version (or otherwise do not have an "UNLOCK" mechanism), then any unlock attempts will likely be unsupported by the manufacturer. This is the very plain and often ignored truth, and nothing to get riled up about, unless someone willfully lied to you.

~ CB

 

[southerndoc]

Some people seem to think that everyone who wants to unlock their iPhone wants to abandon AT&T or avoid using AT&T from the very beginning.

There are some of us who have been with AT&T/Cingular for many years and who have no intention of switching. However, due to extended periods of time (2-3 months at a time) spend in third-world countries where AT&T roaming can be prohibitively expensive, I would like to unlock my iPhone for use with international prepaid SIM cards. AT&T has previously unlocked my Motorola RAZR.

Yes, I can take my Motorola RAZR, but my contacts, calendars, etc. won't be easily accessible. It defeats the purpose of the iPhone.

I am very, very happy with my iPhone when I am in the US, but would love the ability to use it when away without running up a $1,000 per month cell phone bill.

 

[techyjoe]

So why on earth did you buy an iPhone then?

 

[PDE]

Some people seem to think that everyone who wants to unlock their iPhone wants to abandon AT&T or avoid using AT&T from the very beginning.

There are some of us who have been with AT&T/Cingular for many years and who have no intention of switching. However, due to extended periods of time (2-3 months at a time) spend in third-world countries where AT&T roaming can be prohibitively expensive, I would like to unlock my iPhone for use with international prepaid SIM cards. AT&T has previously unlocked my Motorola RAZR.

Yes, I can take my Motorola RAZR, but my contacts, calendars, etc. won't be easily accessible. It defeats the purpose of the iPhone.

I am very, very happy with my iPhone when I am in the US, but would love the ability to use it when away without running up a $1,000 per month cell phone bill.

Absolutely. I've been a ATT-CIngular-ATT customer for many years and I'm no longer in contract but keep using their service. I travel many months a year in East Asia and Europe and it would be ridiculous to use ATT roaming. More importantly, where I go, I cannot ask people to call me at a U.S. number because they can't afford to and won't. So a locked iphone roaming with a U.S. number is useless to me, nor will bringing two devices work. And, as you said, bringing another device defeats the purpose of the iphone.

I would happily sign up for a two-year contract if it meant that I could put a foreign sim in it while abroad. I don't need it unlocked in the states, but abroad it's not an option for it NOT to be unlocked. I don't mind paying monthly bills to ATT for two years, but I need the flexibility of a local sim when I'm abroad.


Luckily I;m able to use my wonderful unlocked iphone...but I fear Apple's future attempts to lock it somehow - or ATT's attempts to disable it. I wouldn't put anything past them at this stage.

 

[bluedevil14]

I wonder if you could name one Samsung or LG GSM phone that is not unlockable. Verizon is CDMA, AT&T is GSM, as is the overwhelming majority of the world. Just because it's a business deal does not make it right. The DMCA allows the consumer to unlock your GSM phone because that is specifically why the standard was created in the first place, so you could use it on any GSM carrier.

You really have to be short sighted to be opposed to "unlocking" it protects the consumer. In countries where it is illegal to sell locked phones pricing on services are more competitive. If Apple truly wanted a exclusive iPhone then they should have made the deal with Verizon.

i thought they went to Verizon first and were denied?

 

[CalBoy]

i thought they went to Verizon first and were denied?

Yes indeed. Probably one of the worst business decisions of all time...it'll be in all of the business textbooks within five years.

 

[southerndoc]

One thing we all can do is write our Senators and Representatives.

While it may be lawful to require one to use AT&T when in an area where AT&T has an established presence, I do not see how it can be lawful to require use of AT&T (i.e., international roaming) when in another country where AT&T does not have a physical presence.

I agree with others. If we create a strong enough voice to AT&T, Apple, the FCC, and Congress, we can succeed at getting the iPhone unlocked (legally).

 

[kdarling]

(About Verizon turning down Apple first.) Yes indeed. Probably one of the worst business decisions of all time...it'll be in all of the business textbooks within five years.

Nope, they did not go to Verizon first. This is one of many iPhone myths.

This one was brought about by Verizon saying they were approached and said no. This automatically (and incorrectly) made the first reporters think Verizon was approached first... something they never said.

In fact, Apple went to ATT first because of their previous ROKR phone relationship. Later on, they approached Verizon to see if they ALSO wanted the phone.

Read it all here:

Wall Street Journal History

 

[CalBoy]

Nope, they did not go to Verizon first. This is one of many iPhone myths.

This one was brought about by Verizon saying they were approached and said no. This automatically (and incorrectly) made the first reporters think Verizon was approached first... something they never said.

In fact, Apple went to ATT first because of their previous ROKR phone relationship. Later on, they approached Verizon to see if they ALSO wanted the phone.

Read it all here:

Wall Street Journal History

In which case, it was well played on Verizon's part, but still an all around stupid decision. They're going to lose money by not having taken the deal.